UNLABELLED: Bazedoxifene and raloxifene were evaluated in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from health economic perspective in Europe. Based on a computer-based algorithm calculating efficacy of the treatments, bazedoxifene appears to be a cost-effective strategy compared to raloxifene, particularly in patients at high fracture risk. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene and raloxifene in eight European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. METHODS: The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, which is a computer-based algorithm to calculate fracture probability using clinical risk factors alone or with bone mineral density, was incorporated in a Markov Tunnel model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene 20 or 40 mg vs. raloxifene 60 mg in postmenopausal osteoporotic women. The efficacy of bazedoxifene and raloxifene for vertebral and non-vertebral fractures was measured as a function of the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture. The model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit (NMB) from a healthcare perspective, given the willingness to pay <euro>30,000. RESULTS: In postmenopausal osteoporotic women, bazedoxifene was a cost saving strategy compared to raloxifene in the countries studied. The median NMB of bazedoxifene compared to raloxifene increased monotonically with the 10-year fracture probability. In general, the median NMB became greater than 0 in women with 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture between 5 and 10% or above. The impact on results by varying the assumptions in the model was examined in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Bazedoxifene appears to be a cost-effective strategy compared to raloxifene for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Europe, particularly in patients at high fracture risk.
UNLABELLED: Bazedoxifene and raloxifene were evaluated in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from health economic perspective in Europe. Based on a computer-based algorithm calculating efficacy of the treatments, bazedoxifene appears to be a cost-effective strategy compared to raloxifene, particularly in patients at high fracture risk. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene and raloxifene in eight European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. METHODS: The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool, which is a computer-based algorithm to calculate fracture probability using clinical risk factors alone or with bone mineral density, was incorporated in a Markov Tunnel model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of bazedoxifene 20 or 40 mg vs. raloxifene 60 mg in postmenopausal osteoporoticwomen. The efficacy of bazedoxifene and raloxifene for vertebral and non-vertebral fractures was measured as a function of the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture. The model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit (NMB) from a healthcare perspective, given the willingness to pay <euro>30,000. RESULTS: In postmenopausal osteoporoticwomen, bazedoxifene was a cost saving strategy compared to raloxifene in the countries studied. The median NMB of bazedoxifene compared to raloxifene increased monotonically with the 10-year fracture probability. In general, the median NMB became greater than 0 in women with 10-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture between 5 and 10% or above. The impact on results by varying the assumptions in the model was examined in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION:Bazedoxifene appears to be a cost-effective strategy compared to raloxifene for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporoticwomen in Europe, particularly in patients at high fracture risk.
Authors: Steven Broekx; Elly Den Hond; Rudi Torfs; Anne Remacle; Raf Mertens; Thomas D'Hooghe; Patrick Neven; Marie-Rose Christiaens; Steven Simoens Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2010-03-20
Authors: Julie A Pasco; Kerrie M Sanders; Frouckje M Hoekstra; Margaret J Henry; Geoffrey C Nicholson; Mark A Kotowicz Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2005-10-14 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: O Johnell; J A Kanis; A Odén; I Sernbo; I Redlund-Johnell; C Petterson; C De Laet; B Jönsson Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2003-10-30 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Mickaël Hiligsmann; Silvia M Evers; Wafa Ben Sedrine; John A Kanis; Bram Ramaekers; Jean-Yves Reginster; Stuart Silverman; Caroline E Wyers; Annelies Boonen Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: C Neuerburg; U Stumpf; R Schmidmaier; C Kammerlander; J Pfeilschifter; W Mutschler; W Böcker Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: David A Turner; Rebekah Fong Soe Khioe; Lee Shepstone; Elizabeth Lenaghan; Cyrus Cooper; Neil Gittoes; Nicholas C Harvey; Richard Holland; Amanda Howe; Eugene McCloskey; Terence W O'Neill; David Torgerson; Richard Fordham Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: N C Harvey; J A Kanis; A Odén; R T Burge; B H Mitlak; H Johansson; E V McCloskey Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: N C Harvey; J A Kanis; A Odén; T Nakamura; M Shiraki; T Sugimoto; T Kuroda; H Johansson; E V McCloskey Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 4.507